Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Some of my Senate sources have gotten a copy of the 107 page "ethics and earmark reform" bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi... [they] are for the most gutting concrete earmark and ethics reform while preserving just enough of the appearance of reform to be able to claim to have fulfilled their 2006 campaign promises... Put another way - it's all a charade.

...Sen. Tom Coburn's staff has gone through the Reid/Pelosi text and compared it to the previously approved earmark reform bill adopted unanimously by the Senate in January. They put the results of their examination in a handy chart:

Provision

Senate-passed Bill

New Bill

Prohibits Senators from trading earmarks for votes

Yes

No

Prohibits Senators and staff from promoting earmarks from which they or their families would receive a direct financial benefit

Yes

No

Allows the Senate parliamentarian, not the Majority Leader, to determine if a bill complies with earmark disclosure rules

Yes

No

Prohibits consideration of bills, joint resolutions, or conference reports if earmarks are not disclosed

Yes

No

Requires earmarks attached to a conference report to be publicly available on the Internet in a searchable format 48 hours before consideration

Yes

No

Requires 67 votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule

Yes

No

Requires a full day's notice prior to attempting to suspend the earmark disclosure rule

Yes

No

Requires all earmark certifications from Senators to be posted on the Internet within 48 hours

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

...Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal...

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

If there was some caveat to the effect of "Of course, this would be wonderful news for the country," the Washington Post reporter seems to have forgotten to write it down.

Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.

What do you call it when the U.S. sits idly by as the Soviets invade Afghanistan and a newly radicalized Iran holds Americans hostage?

Last month, a a "smoking gun" video surfaced in the Paul vs. Clinton civil suit that appears to show Hillary and her agents helping to plan the fundraiser. Some election observers believe that this is evidence of Hillary's solicitation of a hard-money donation, which -- because it far surpasses the limit of $25,000 -- is a felony offense.

In a sworn declaration taken on April 7, 2006, Hillary Clinton testified that she had "no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with [Peter Paul] whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate... I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred."

I wonder if she remembers the discussion now?

The Smoking-Gun Video

Hillary Clinton talking to Peter Paul on speaker-phone: "...What ever it is you're doing, is it okay that I thank you? ...I'm very appreciative... it sounds fabulous, I got a full report from Kelly... uh... today, when she got back, and told me everything that... uh... you're doing and it just sounds like it's gonna be a great event..."

Clinton's participation in the planning of the fundraising event "...would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit 'hard money' contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years."

Was there an attempted coverup by Clinton appointee Judge Howard Matz?

In 2005, Judge Howard Matz presided over the trial of Hillary's finance chairman David Rosen. Rosen was facing three counts of causing false statements to be filed with the Federal Election Commission in connection with the Paul fundraiser.

The government says Mr. Rosen reported that the event cost at most about $400,000. Prosecutors contend the real cost was $1.1 million... Judge Matz began the legal process by blasting Senator Hillary Clinton's key accuser, Peter Paul, whose allegations spurred the indictment of Rosen...

Judge Matz was more forgiving when it came to Mrs. Clinton, however, vowing not to allow the proceedings to become a referendum on Mrs. Clinton, her politics, or her personal life. "This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," he insisted. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal." Though both Paul and another key witness, celebrity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken, both say they told the former first lady about the campaign cash Rosen allegedly hid from federal regulators, Judge Matz insisted, "She's not in the loop in any direct way, and that's something the jury will be told. Mrs. Clinton will not be called to testify in the case."

The prosecutor, Peter R. Zeidenberg told the jury, "You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way, shape or form."

The video shows that the behavior of Matz and Zeidenberg was either biased, ignorant or perhaps even criminal. At best, they mistakenly fibbed. At worst, they should be investigated. The video record appears to demonstrate that they were completely and utterly wrong about Hillary Clinton's involvement.

Oh, one more thing: Matz was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by none other than Bill Clinton in March of 1998. Nah, that couldn't have had anything to do with his egregious behavior.

Truth-Boating Hillary: What you can do

Ready to help Truth-Boat Hillary? Here's how you can help get the word out and stop the mainstream media blockade of this news:

Sunday, July 29, 2007

UK's Guardian is reporting that British intelligence had pinpointed Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts on two separate occasions in 1998 and 1999. A thorough report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee details the British offers of information to the Clinton administration under one condition: no torture of the Al Qaeda kingpin was permitted. The Clinton apparatus refused to make that guarantee and Bin Laden escaped to kill another day.

So let's recap. Before Abu Graib, before the Iraq War, and before 9/11, Bill Clinton's administration refused to accept Bin Laden's location -- despite suffering a series of catastrophic terrorist attacks -- because the U.S. wouldn't promise not to torture Bin Laden.

I'd like to use the words irony and hypocrisy here, but neither has sufficient weight. And because it is a double embarrassment for Democrats, the mainstream media is completely ignoring the story (only one U.S. news source, the powerhouse Bismarck, ND station KXMB, has mentioned it).

IowaVoice sums it up concisely: "If Clinton would have done his job while in office, we wouldn't have had a 9/11 or a war on terror." I wonder how many lies will be told by the left to spin this stunning report? The over-under says 1,000.

Monday's O'Reilly Factor should be a keeper. O'Reilly has promised to go after hard left rally site Daily Kos, turning over the rocks to expose a plethora of crackpots that harbor virulently anti-American, Communist, and antisemitic leanings.

One of Kos' greatest hits

With Democratic candidates scheduled to pay a visit to his YearlyKos event, Markos appears to have gone on a hurried cleaning binge, attempting to purge the site of offensive material. Too late! Consider the following choice items from the last several months:

The ability of Hillary Clinton to slither away from legal scrutiny is uncanny. Consider Travelgate, Whitewater, and the Barrett Report, all examples of alleged crimes and coverups that would have toppled a Republican administration.

Now a civil case brought by Clinton fundraiser Peter Paul threatens to dismantle's Hillary's hard-won reputation for evading legal jeopardy. According to insiders, on Sept. 7, 2007 the appellate court will rule whether Hillary will be included as a defendant in the case. No matter the outcome, though, she will be forced to testify under oath regarding the fundraising for her 2000 Senate campaign.

Equal Justice Foundation launches new site and documentary film

And, on Friday, the Equal Justice Foundation of America named the Hillary Clinton Civil Fraud suit brought by Peter Paul "The Most Important Whistleblowing Case in the Nation for 2007:"

...The Equal Justice Foundation of America, the public interest foundation dedicated to "Aiding Whistleblowers who expose corruption and abuse of the Rule of Law in America" announced today that it is designating the Los Angeles court case of Paul v Hillary R. Clinton et al as the most significant Whistleblowing activity in the nation in 2007.

"The civil fraud suit Paul v Hillary Clinton et al represents the efforts of Hillary Clinton's largest 2000 campaign donor turned Whistleblower, Peter Paul, to use the civil courts to expose the multitude of frauds and obstructions of justice that Hillary Clinton engaged in, with the help of then President Bill Clinton and leaders of the DNC, to win her first election to the Senate and avoid any accountability to the Rule of Law," commented EJFA President and Founder James Nesfield. "Because of the significance of the allegations involved, the mountain of evidence that supports these allegations, capped by the recent release of a smoking gun video that captures Hillary Clinton in the act of violating the law, inexplicably withheld for six years by a government agency, Paul v Clinton has been selected by EJFA as the most important whistleblowing activity in the nation for 2007."

Hillary's memory appears at odds with the smoking gun video

...EJFA is sponsoring the first ever documentary to be produced on Senator Clinton, Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v Clinton, focusing exclusively on the circumstances surrounding the case, using more than five hours of exclusive home videos of the Clintons made by Peter Paul when he was a close personal friend and largest donor to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign.

James Nesfield, Founder and President of EJFA, was the highly publicized whistleblower who assisted the state of New York in exposing and fining the Mutual Fund Industry in the 2004 Market Timing scandal that cost investors more than one triillion dollars. His experiences as one of the most important financial whistleblowers in American history led him to recognize the need for a support organization for private whistleblowers...

Whenever the name Peter Paul comes up in Democratic circles, the reaction is sharp and instantaneous. The man's a convicted felon. He's not believable. It's outrageous that anyone would pay him credence.

Last month, a video surfaced that appears to show Hillary clearly collaborating in the planning of the event. According to some observers, it is amazing new "evidence of Hillary participating, coordinating, and facilitating a hard money in-kind donation... It was illegal from the outset." Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

Help break through the Mainstream Media blockade of this case

Be sure and listen to the Hugh Hewitt show from Friday, where you'll hear additional details about this groundbreaking case. And visit the EJFA website and start spreading the word. There's a storm brewing and the first peals of thunder are echoing in the distance.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

In 2008, Congressional Democrats forced the prison and military court at Guantanamo Bay to close. The junior party insisted that terrorists captured on the battlefield be given the rights of U.S. citizens...

Welcome to Kandahar, Afghanistan, Mr...

Grissom. Gil Grissom.

I'm Lance Corporal Case. I was told by my CO that you wanted to speak with me.

Maybe you could write a letter to your Representative about reopening Gitmo.

Yes, sir. I've definitely got some ideas about the first prisoners if it reopens. The first ones in should be some of these treasonous SOB's responsible for closing the most humane prison in the world.